The author's thesis is bizarre. People are not judged based on how wealthy their "homeland" is. Indians in America are the highest earning and most educated ethnic group. They are treated as such. They are not treated like barely literate farmers (many people in India). And a lot of the nouveau rich from China and the Middle East are creating a backlash in the West, rather than adoration.

Racism in each country is unique and needs to be understood in the context of that country's history and culture. Racism against blacks in America depends much more on the legacy of Jim Crow and segregation. Racism in northern Europe has much more to do with the recent waves of migrants and the failure of the project of integration. Crime is up in those areas, and the native people have responded. In my view, the author takes two very complex and broad topics, and tries to link them together. The result is jumbled and not academically convincing.

Anonymous wrote:If the Bell Curve was right, we should all be servants of Asian nations.

It is right because we kind of all are servants to yahweh's chosen. And they are at the top of the hierarchy wrt iq

If the Bell Curve was right, we should all be servants of Asian nations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's assume Murray et al.are right and Blacks really are a deviation lower in IQ than Whites. How does this justify any of the institutionalized racism out there? We know full damn well its not being done "for their own good" as witnessed by the harassment of wealthy and/or intelligent Blacks, and why should we give some White idiot a greater benefit of the doubt than an intelligent Black?

As an economic progressive, the cognitive difference is precisely why I fervently support redistribution to those who are not as gifted. Murray, richwine, etc only strengthens my views on helpful economic redistribution.

As I understand it (being in a related field), The Bell Curve was extremely controversial when published. Many critics charge that the authors go beyond the data in their assertion that racial differences in IQ are due to genetic factors. There are countless other criticisms of this book, so I'd not take the data as they report it at face value.

That's the funny thing; they really didn't assert that racial differences in IQ were primarily due to genetics. All they said was that there was approximately a 1 std deviation difference in average IQ (something that has been exhaustively studied) and that this difference in IQ led to most of the differences in outcome. It was controversial because people don't want it to be true, not because the data in it was suspect.

To actually quote them: "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."

It's becoming increasingly clear though that shared environment (what people generally think of as home life) has less impact then was previously thought. From what I've read, the current thinking is that about 70% is hereditary and 30% is seems to be random luck from a messy biological process. The amount of impact the home environment has on IQ drops to almost zero by adulthood. Obviously this assumes some environment without extreme privation, something which most people in the US don't experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's assume Murray et al.are right and Blacks really are a deviation lower in IQ than Whites. How does this justify any of the institutionalized racism out there? We know full damn well its not being done "for their own good" as witnessed by the harassment of wealthy and/or intelligent Blacks, and why should we give some White idiot a greater benefit of the doubt than an intelligent Black?

As an economic progressive, the cognitive difference is precisely why I fervently support redistribution to those who are not as gifted. Murray, richwine, etc only strengthens my views on helpful economic redistribution.

As I understand it (being in a related field), The Bell Curve was extremely controversial when published. Many critics charge that the authors go beyond the data in their assertion that racial differences in IQ are due to genetic factors. There are countless other criticisms of this book, so I'd not take the data as they report it at face value.

Anonymous wrote:Let's assume Murray et al.are right and Blacks really are a deviation lower in IQ than Whites. How does this justify any of the institutionalized racism out there? We know full damn well its not being done "for their own good" as witnessed by the harassment of wealthy and/or intelligent Blacks, and why should we give some White idiot a greater benefit of the doubt than an intelligent Black?

As an economic progressive, the cognitive difference is precisely why I fervently support redistribution to those who are not as gifted. Murray, richwine, etc only strengthens my views on helpful economic redistribution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Haiti is the example of what happened when freed slaves (yes, I hate that term) made of a country with significant resources. Not good.

Haiti was forced to pay France 90 billion francs (about $15 billion in modern terms) in order to reimburse slave owners for its own citizens. To look at Haiti as a failed example of "home rule" but ignore the fact that they had to purchase the freedom of their own citizens at a rate that left them indebted to France into the 20th century, is revisionist and willfully blind.

God, I love people who read.

Anonymous wrote:Eh, if colonization never happened Africa would still be worse off. African nations as a whole have a lower median-IQ. They look worse off these days in comparison to the first-world. But if the were in a vacuum, they probably wouldn't see themselves as worse off.

I know that's an inconvenient truth. But it's hard to disprove.

Black person here. I'd like you to first provide some legit references for your claims about the cognitive inferiority of Africans, and then I'd like to hear why we should accept that these measures of IQ, which are typically normed on predominantly white samples of Americans, are 100% valid in non-Western countries. Third, I'd like to hear what the data says when socioeconomic status is controlled for in these between-group comparisons.

Also, I'd like you to read Guns, Germs, & Steel by Jared Diamond, and get back to me.

'Kay? Thanks.

Botswana is a successful black country.

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ignorance is astounding...

Please feel free to point out anything that is factually incorrect.

Nothing you wrote is a fact period. You can't refute it because it is imaginary bullshit you came up with. Like if I told you the tooth fairy exists, could you go and find me a study that says she doesn't?

new pp - not fully agreeing with the poster you are responding to, but the poster did use certain attributes that when measured between racial groups, tends to break the way the poster you are quoting says they break. The poster limited it to: SAT scores, higher HHI, lower crime, school suspension and out of wedlock birth rates. Those are all very easily measurable and the list goes: jews > asians > whites > blacks. IQ studies tend to follow this order as well.

Sure, but if a white high-income couple adopts a black baby, that child will be as smart and successful as a white baby. Environment goes a long way.

Actually adoptees (regardless of race) tend to have iq's that correlate with their birth parents as opposed to their adoptive parents.

Let's assume Murray et al.are right and Blacks really are a deviation lower in IQ than Whites. How does this justify any of the institutionalized racism out there? We know full damn well its not being done "for their own good" as witnessed by the harassment of wealthy and/or intelligent Blacks, and why should we give some White idiot a greater benefit of the doubt than an intelligent Black?

As the decades go by the "blame it all on European colonialism" excuse is beginning to wear thin, particularly as other ex-colonies like Singapore, Malaysia etc thrive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Haiti is the example of what happened when freed slaves (yes, I hate that term) made of a country with significant resources. Not good.

RUFKM? You do know that Haiti's issues are directly related to US policy right?

Do you know ANYTHING about Haitian history? There's a whole lot not at all tied to US policy. Do you really look at era after era in Haiti politics and corruption and not see a great deal of responsibility to go around?